tom hunter

I saw an interesting analysis on the advertising of the various campaigns which showed that Bush had spent about $1200 per vote and Cruz about $12.

Actually Cruz can be counted as a winner also – not that the WaPo would give him that credit (Bloomberg for crying out loud?) – with his third place finish in a more secular state where he was not expected to do well and where he clearly put in only minimal effort. South Carolina and the SEC primaries will truly tell the tale, given their heavy Evangelical populations. I’m not yet convinced that Cruz’s strategy is the correct one, even in a primary.

Another analysis of Trump’s win showed that he won across all demographics, which is pretty significant. We’ll see if the long-awaited negative onslaught from Cruz has an effect, especially if it goes after Trump’s notorious thin skin.

Finally it looks like Bush is going to throw the kitchen sink at Rubio to try and clear the moderate lane. I never thought he’d be so stupid, obsessed and bitter, but there you go. I think all he’ll succeed in doing is driving Rubio voters to Cruz. Bush still does not get that his time and approach has come and gone and does not fit the world of 2016.

Nevada on Feb 23rd will be an interesting sidelight, simply because it’s another caucus state and both Rubio and Bush have spent time and money there.

Grizz

What I despise about the primaries is that it selects the candidates diehard Democrats and Republicans want for their president. It does not put forward a candidate that is electable to the voters at large. Lets say there were 2 diametrically opposed radical candidates running. Surely the the non-aligned less politically motivated voter, which I am guessing is most of them, would be scratching around for a 3rd choice candidate.

Kleva Kiwi

tom hunter

As far as endorsements are concerned I’ll be interested to see if Christie endorses Trump. He’s stuck it to his own party often enough that it would not worry him (witness his self-promoting speech at the 2012 GOP convention where he barely mentioned Romney, as such speakers are supposed to for the nominee).

A Trump endorsement would not surprise me given the “long” phonecall they had the other night when Christie quit the race. He’s term limited in NJ so where will he go for “public service” – Attorney General in a Trump administration? You Betcha!

As far as Carson is concerned – well if he’s more pissed about Cruz’s tactic in Iowa than about Trump implying that his youth demonstrated “pathological disease” then…..

Graeme

Nigel

Gut feel Clinton is in real trouble, the GOP is tough to pick, probably comes down to whether Trump peaks at 35%. Momentum is a funny thing & Trump plays it well.
Kinda feeling like Sanders/Trump/Bloomberg in the final.

tom hunter

Why would Rubio votes go to Trump, they’re bitterly opposed to each other if US blog sites are anything to go by. The range of disagreement seems wider between those two than between Cruz and Rubio.

I’d piss myself laughing if the GOP establishment was left choosing between Cruz and Trump – but if recent noises are anything to go by they’re leaning towards Trump. Anything to keep the lobbyist gravy train going.

Tauhei Notts

Fentex

The interesting one will be Carson. Who will his support go to? Trump or Cruz or possibly Rubio?

I think it’s been observed his support flows to Cruz, in particular the evangelical leaders who tried to avoid Trump and bolstered his early polls seem to have jumped to Cruz – which is why Rubio has recently been banging the religious drum a bit.

Ed Snack

Yes, as the saying has it, the Republican grandees and establishment fear Trump, but they truly hate Cruz. Because Cruz is the most likely way that all their deals and entitlements would be removed.

Federal politics in the USA has been steadily becoming more corrupt and elitist, a process affecting both parties. This has been recognized slowly by voters but has led to initially the Tea Party “revolt” in the Republicans, and now the Sanders wing in the Democrats although that’s also an ideological crusade in a different way. After the failure to reform by electing a swathe of the “usual suspects” career politicians who promised to start reforms but have failed to actually do anything to upset the mutually profitable “consensus”, the revolt has spread. That’s why Trump is leading in such an unlikely way, primarily he’s NOT a politician. Cruz too is one of the few politicians who hasn’t obviously sold out, whereas Rubio was easily tarred as one who has thanks to his support for amnesty. On the Democrat side Hilary’s problems stem from the same basic issue although Democrat supporters are so far showing themselves to be more capable of holding their noses and voting for the corrupt establishment for very emotional and ideological reasons. Not sure how long that facade can continue though, and what sort of anger will be on display if Bernie manages to win a majority of states in the primary but isn’t the nominee because Clinton has sewn up 99% of the “super-delegates” ?

At least, that’s the way I tend to see it.

So unless something drastic happens in the next couple of states, on the Republican side it will be Trump versus Cruz. Only spolier, in a deadlocked convention could they nominate Mitt again ?

On the Democrat side Hilary will do anything, almost literally anything, to get the nomination, but, going out on a limb, I’m tending to think she will fail, maybe because the political pressure around the classified emails will get too serious. Then, will the Democrats go all out for Bernie, can they do otherwise, or will they offer a convention special, Biden or Michelle Obama or Bloomberg ? If Hilary doesn’t get up, can they win ?

President Trump, maybe it’s more likely than at first it seemed. If I had to chose, Cruz maybe is the best option of those with a genuine chance. But the complications exist that it could be someone else.

emmess

Despite Rubio’s slip up at the last debate repeating the same line four times, I still think as long as he doesn’t do something similar again, he should recover and is still most likely to win the nomination.
It’s probably a little too early to tell but I think that only really hurt with the New Hampshire voters that were seriously considering their vote at the time.

blazeoflight

tom hunter

Couldn’t happen to a nice bunch.

Gosh, you’d almost think the Democrats had prizes by comparison. I still have to laugh about both the age and race presented after the shit fired in the 1980’s about Reagan running as a 69 year old in 1980 and the chin-pulling questions in 2012 about the GOP’s “lack of diversity”.

Good to see that both factors are irrelevant – at least while the Democrats only have the ancient white crook and the ancient white socialist, not to mention the enormous diversity in thinking.

Still, this comment comes from the guy who put out the following keeper:

tom hunter

(Shrugs shoulders). Changes in poll numbers have a huge number of factors affecting them. As just one possibility, it could be folks moving from Rubio to Cruz and Cruz folk moving to Trump.

What you say may be happening, but in drawing that conclusion surely you would have to ask yourself what the overlap is between Trump supporters and Rubio supporters. If you can establish what that is then you’ve got a factor that makes sense – but I don’t see such an overlap, especially considering the number one positive driver of Trump supporters is immigration and that’s the main thing they hate about Rubio. Why would they have been with Rubio in the first place?

RF

Clinton is a devious bitch who will soon realise that she is in deep shit as the FBI is after her arse. Billy boy who I once had a huge amount of respect for is an old man with a heap of serious bagage.

s.russell

I suspect that the Republican race will soon become a three-cornered one, but with each corner fanatically opposed to the other two. We could thus get the fascinating prospect of it remaining three-cornered all the way (instead of the usual simplification to two and then one). The chances of a deadlock are rising…. which will at least be tremendously entertaining!

Tauhei Notts

Let me bring this presidential election into perspective, a perspective that New Zealanders will comprehend.
Donald Trump has less chance of being the next President of the U.S.A. than Brendan McCullum’s team have of winning the Basin Reserve test match.
Now, do you all understand that?

Steve Todd

Ann Romney has said (October 2014) – “No. We’re not doing that again.” Plus, she has multiple sclerosis.

Also, Romney will not want to be a three-time loser. Conclusion – he will not stand for president again.

For those of you who are dreaming about a Bloomberg run – forget it. He would probably only stand if it was Trump-Sanders, but by the time that becomes clear, it would be far too late for him. In any event, he would not win any electoral college (EC) votes.

If, however, he were to win enough EC votes to prevent Trump or Sanders getting to 270, the outcome would then be decided by the House of Representatives, where each state would have one vote. That would almost certainly mean the House would “chuse” Trump as President, with 33 votes. The twist? Sanders, with 17 votes, becomes Vice President. Oh, dear. (See Article II, Section 1, paragraph 3 of the US Constitution.)

So no obvious errors waiting to be exploited, though I disagree with putting Trump ahead of Sanders. I agree with Sanders and Rubio being close with Sanders pipping him (even if some others don’t share the betting crowds wisdom) although obviously when the nominations are completed these will shift somewhat.

Graeme, I don’t know if you’d noticed but it would literally kill DPF to admit that Trump has a chance of winning the nomination, let alone the Presidency. He’s been predicting Trump’s demise for months, but he has been toning down the ridiculing of Trump’s chances lately as it would leave too much egg on his face once it’s over.

I’m no Trump supporter (just a casual US politics observer), but unlike DPF and Jeb Bush I am not a political snob who thinks there should be a certain way politics is supposed to happen.

Democrats:
The unelectable vs the unelectable. But it would not be an unhappy day if Clinton was elected President. She’s right of Obama. Better foreign affairs and Commander in Chief as well. Obama destabilized the whole of the Middle East with is proclamation that he was sending in jets to whup Assad. Then didn’t! I’d be seriously worried for the fortunes of the GOP with a Clinton/Sanders ticket.

Republicans:
Rock Paper Scissors. Trump, Cruz, Rubio. In that order. Just because Trump is buffoon and in showbiz doesn’t mean he won’t get elected president. Reagan and Arnie are precedents.

tom hunter

Rubio supporters are going to Trump.

Since the question was ignored before I’m probably wasting my time asking it again, so I’ll just point the following out from that last link:

Trump’s support comes disproportionally from independent voters (47 percent), those who characterize themselves as something other than conservative (47 percent) and those without a college education (49 percent).
…
Rubio does best among Republican voters who make more than $100,000 a year; 18 percent of those voters back the Florida Republican.

They don’t break down the numbers for Rubio any further, but do they sound like the same voters who would move from him to Trump?

Graeme

Tom, Trump does well across all groups including well educated. I noticed when Carson dropped dramatically a while back, Trump went up close to the same amount, now I’m seeing it with Rubio. Trumps low ceiling of support is getting remarkably close to 50 percent. I’m sure once Carson quits plust with the latest drop outs, Trump will be well over 50 percent.

dime

tom hunter

Trumps low ceiling of support is getting remarkably close to 50 percent.

In one survey in the state of South Carolina. In other states and nationally he’s still hovering around 30%, as he has been for ages.

Of all the demographics that Trump draws support from, the one that makes me laugh the most are the Evangelicals. As if they don’t provide enough material already for atheists to attack as hypocritical, a good proportion of them are now supporting a guy who would not know one end of the Bible from the other, is on his third trophy wife marriage and openly boasted about cheating on his past wives. Looks like money really does come before religious virtue.

“Of all the demographics that Trump draws support from, the one that makes me laugh the most are the Evangelicals.”

Tom, allow me an explanation. Evangelicals and other conservative US Christians are generally opposed to the secular liberalism of the Democrats. They see militant secularism as a threat to their religious freedom and the religious character of the US. Now given that one of the drivers of Democratic support tends to be immigrants, then it’s not a surprise that mass immigration is a concern to them. They make the calculation that more immigrants means more support for the Dem’s, and thus more support for the Dem’s secular liberalism, and they are not wrong. That is true even when those voting for the Dem’s may be strong Catholics.

So the support for Trump, despite his obvious lack of any real conservative/Christian values and beliefs, makes sense to them as Trump has come out the strongest on immigration reform. So I think’s it’s less that they are being fooled by Trump, and more that they are prioritizing their concerns.

tom hunter

I’d be interested in seeing interviews, focus groups or some other analysis that tries to explain the Evangelical support for Trump. If you really wanted to be nasty about them you could say that’s it’s pure cynicism, but I figure is that it’s purely utilitarian: He’s not one of us but he’ll defend us” perhaps?

In any case it’s no different to all the Roman Catholics that vote Democrat every election – presumably because of “helping the poor” – while ignoring the party’s increasingly extremist stand on abortion and so forth. Perhaps some knowledgable Catholic will turn up to explain why Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden have not been excommunicated!

UPDATE: Thanks Shawn. That pretty much gels with my guess about them. Now all I need here is Lucia Maria.

tom hunter

Speaking of religious wars I’m really enjoying the spectacle of True Leftists eating their own in the Democrat battle between Bernie and Hillary. The latest front has been launched as Hillary despairs of all the young woman supporting Bernie and unleashing the same shit on those woman that they’ve hit the GOP with for years:

It’s not done and you have to help. Hillary Clinton will always be there for you. And just remember, there’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other.”

That’s another ancient white vessel, Madeline Albright, who has been using that line for a couple of decades now. Then came Gloria Steinem, yakking with Bill Maher about how Bernie Sanders’ candidacy was resonating with young female voters because:

“‘Where are the boys?’ The boys are with Bernie.”

Naturally this has caused a firestorm in feminist circles, but as the article points out, this is simply standard feminist criticism that’s been around for decades:

If you’re a woman and you don’t support so-called “progressive feminist leaders,” there is something wrong with you. If you’re critical of them, then you must hate women or something. And, they’ve also said in so many words, men should have no say in “women’s issues” unless they agree with conventional feminist wisdom.

In short, they don’t see any scenario where their opposition would have legitimate grievances with their positions.

Except it’s now being turned on themselves – hence the squealing – best summarised by this comment from Donna Smith, the Executive Director for the Progressive Democrats of America:

It is not helpful to anyone for Gloria to make those kinds of comments about women who support Bernie — young or not. Now that I am in my 60s, I have well earned the right to support the candidates for public office that I believe best represent my views on the issues that matter to me.
….
What I am saying is that it was a really odd comment coming from a woman who has lived her life lifting women up and demanding that as equals to men we have the right to our own minds and bodies. Presumably that includes the right to our own political decisions as well.

stephieboy

Fentex

…spectacle of True Leftists eating their own in the Democrat battle between Bernie and Hillary.

If Bernie keeps doing well, at all ahead of expectations after New Hampshire, it’s going to get very nasty. I imagine Hillary is near apoplectic that another outsider is threatening to thwart her chances again, and she likely won’t have another chance.

Though I was thinking, having seen Sanders walk on stage for Colbert’s show that his stoop made him look old and tired and I wondered if he could manage more than one term.

Steve Todd

“[…], so yes, the Evangelical Trump support does not really surprise. But I still find it laughable.”

So do I. In fact, I think it’s hilarious. Jerry Falwell, Jr is as odious, and just as much a charlatan, as his father was.

Shawn Herles at 11:26 am.

“Evangelicals and other conservative US Christians are generally opposed to the secular liberalism of the Democrats. They see militant secularism as a threat to their religious freedom and the religious character of the US. […].”

Why? The First Amendment guarantees the “free exercise” [of religion]. Even as the percentage of religiously unaffiliated Americans (22.8% as of 2014, and seemingly increasing near-exponentially) increases, nothing can or will prevent religionist Americans from freely exercising their religion.

It seems to me more likely that Evangelicals see a threat to the influence they currently have over American life and politics, and they don’t like it – simple as that.

What they don’t seem to understand (in my view), or care about, is that that influence (along with that of the Tea Party) is destroying the Republican Party, and making it near-impossible for future Republican nominees to be elected president (except as beneficiaries of a “time for a change” sentiment).

Since the rise of the Tea Party in 2010, Republican candidates must now be so extreme, to win the nomination, they render themselves unelectable “in the General”. From now on, I believe the voters will not accept the Republican nominee “toning down” his or her rhetoric during September and October, to curry favour with the general populace – they will know they are just being suckered.

We will witness this later in the year when the Republican nominee (hopefully, The Donald) gets thrashed by the Democratic nominee (hopefully, Bernie) something like 380 to 158.

tom hunter

Why? The First Amendment guarantees the “free exercise” [of religion].

To paraphrase Bill Clinton, it depends on what the meaning of “free exercise” is. Currently The Little Sisters of The Poor, whom nobody should mistake for a megachurch rolling in dollars, is fighting the Federal Government over it’s demand – via the godforsaken Obamacare law – that they must pay for the contraceptives of their employees, even though doing so violates their religious beliefs.

Even when it has come to national defence, the US government in the past allowed for religious groups not to be drafted into the military if it conflicted with their pacifist beliefs. That’s still the case, and more than a few leftists have gleefully supported those stands by religious people because they also opposed the US being at war: mutually supportive and all that. But now that an issue exists where leftists are in conflict with religious groups we’re back to the world of Do As I Say…. It’s The Law and Our Opponents Are Nasty Religious Fanatics.

Tell me about extremism again. I see that you’re a newby here at KB, but the tropes you’re putting up are old and tired and utterly un-examined by partisans and ideologues because such people just naturally assume they’re neither. Witness the following:

Republican candidates must now be so extreme, to win the nomination, they render themselves unelectable “in the General”.

As was said of Reagan and every GOP nominee since hapless Gerald Ford. Boring and plain stupid when you get down to the underlying assumption – that the same could not be said of the Democrats, and with more truth. Even Democrats like Jim Webb have observed how the party is now more hardline left-wing than ever before in it’s history. I think his first clue was when he said that his greatest enemy was the North Vietnamese soldier who threw grenades at him – and the debate crowd was silent, with a few, muffled boos thrown in. At that stage he knew it was time to drop out.

On abortion, healthcare, the military, foreign policy and every cultural issue you can think of, the Democrats are far to the left of where they were in Bill Clinton’s era – which is why Hillary got beaten by Obama in 2008 and why she’s struggling against Bernie now. You just think this is normal because you’re a Kiwi left-winger who believes the Democrats are moving towards your socialist positions – and you’re right about that.

But in the US context, if the Democrats are not extreme and are able to appeal to the centre (unlike those evil ‘Rethuglicans’) you might like to try and figure out why they’ve lost control of the House, the Senate and so many state governments in the last few years. Almost 1000 political seats gone in just seven short years.

Don’t tell me – it’s because the US is more racist, mysogynist, conservative or religious than before? Oh – and gerrymandered seats too.

You have no idea how much you sound like Madeline and Gloria in providing your explanations.

Fentex

They see militant secularism as a threat to their religious freedom and the religious character of the US.

”

Why? The First Amendment guarantees the “free exercise” [of religion].

People disagree on what the free exercise of religion means, and the line between where practising your religion becomes imposing your religion is hard for some people to see (especially those who don’t want to).

Cynics will observe the distinction is clearly not made by people who want to privilege their religion as revealed by ACLU lawsuits trying to maintain that line illustrate (town councils ejecting people who object to religious invocations, clerks refusing their responsibilities on grounds of religious preference etc).

It get’s more subtle, as in the example tom hunter gives where an employers provided health care plan cannot be used to exert the employers religious beliefs. If U.S health care didn’t rely so much on employer provided plans it’d be easier to divorce these issues, but relatively simple moral arguments quickly get tangled up in more questions when other principles intrude.

Anyway peoples freedom of religion is not practised absolutely in the U.S. In practice Christianity is much privileged and those with privilege don’t tend to give it up readily.

V

Steve Todd

Thanks for that, Tom (meant genuinely, not sarcastically).

I’ve been around since about mid-2013 – I pick and choose what I respond to, concentrating mainly on electoral reform issues. But I’m excited by Bernie’s candidacy and can’t resist putting up my leftist thoughts on occasion. Should it all be over after 15 March, I will probably disappear until about August.

That’s a good point about the Little Sisters of the Poor, which would be one of the reasons why I agree with Bernie’s policy of free health care for all, etc., and why I hope NZ never, ever, adopts a formal, written constitution.

Yes, I saw Jim Webb in that debate, and I was just as sickened as was the audience. It wasn’t that the North Vietnamese soldier threw hand grenades at him that made the audience fall silent – it was him proudly implying / skiting that he killed him. (No one messes with Jim Webb and gets away with it.) I think he so badly misread his audience, because he is actually a Republican (as I believe Hillary is). He had no business being on that particular stage, in my view.

The Democrats may well be far to the left of where they were 20 years ago – I hope they are. Hopefully, that reflects a changing society, a change which, in my view, is all to the good. But, the party is still right-of-centre in my opinion, akin to National.

No doubt there are many reasons why the Democrats have lost electoral ground. You’re right, one of them is gerrymandering by Republican-controlled state houses; another is the concentration of Democrats in urban areas, and another is how, over the last 30 or 40 years, the Republican Party has succeeded in conning ordinary Americans into voting against their own interests, primarily using patriotism / “supporting our troops”.

And thank you, too, Fentex, for your response. You and Tom are both definitely better informing me.

mikenmild

I suppose if the Democrats have moved far to the left since the 1990s, I suppose that the Republicans must now represent the very moderate centre ground on abortion, healthcare, the military, foreign policy and every cultural issue you can think of.

Fentex

Have you heard Hillary coughing up a lung on the campaign trail? By comparison Sanders is in peak condition.

Oh I’ve no real opinion on either’s health, and even the toughest of individuals can be tried by the brutal schedules of campaigning in the U.S. I was just struck for a moment by the depth of what looked a tired sag in Sanders shoulders.

I was also thinking this morning, reading a little history, that it seems a long time since a drama like an assassination or heart attack was involved in the U.S Presidency and it passed across my mind that it kinda feels like the the U.S is ‘due’ such an event on mere odds of it happening some time.

Steve Todd

“If U.S health care didn’t rely so much on employer provided plans it’d be easier to divorce these issues, but relatively simple moral arguments quickly get tangled up in more questions when other principles intrude.”

Excellent point – thank you, Fentex. The dog-eat-dog society the Americans have created for themselves must truly be a near-“dystopian nightmare” for those on the bottom.

Fentex

The dog-eat-dog society the Americans have created for themselves must truly be a near-“dystopian nightmare” for those on the bottom.

I wouldn’t be so quick to be down on the U.S regarding this as if NZ is an exemplar of how to treat the poor and them not. It’s easy to get holier than thou because we have more rational and effective health care for the poor, but we’re not particularly nice people and not better than the U.S at improving the poor’s lot or options.

We are in many ways handicapped by circumstance compared to the U.S in opportunity and ability and our anglo-saxon traditions not a lot different.

tom hunter

The dog-eat-dog society the Americans have created for themselves….

And that’s another standard NZ attitude that I’ve heard for decades now, and to be fair, it’s what I thought before I went and actually lived in the place. USA Main Street as Wall Street, Manhattan – or Hollywood, where an extra 10 pounds and five years has you out on the street.

Honestly, could you be more provincial? It’s like having some NZ yob who has fallen out of a series of Tiki Tour buses and vomited on the streets of all the great capitals of Europe in 13 days, snarking about the average American lacking a passport.

… but we’re not particularly nice people and not better than the U.S at improving the poor’s lot or options.

I was almost going to cheer at this defense until I saw the qualifier.

And leftists wonder why people get pissed off at them for comparing their fellow citizens and their society to some unicorn infested utopia. FFS.

As it happens, a society’s ability to lift people permanently out of poverty has everything to do with how well their economy and society is running and very little to do with how “nice” they are.

Fentex

tom hunter; a society’s ability to lift people permanently out of poverty has everything to do with how well their economy and society is running and very little to do with how “nice” they are.

I meant two distinct things – we’re not particularly nice and oughtn’t feel smug as if the U.S is somehow meaner than NZ as a comment on the “dog-eat-dog society” statement AND that we’re not better than the U.S at improving the poor’s lot or options.

Two clauses, not one, not a claim that being nice helps increase wealth which I thought my next sentence made clear.

deadrightkev

Hark at the spineless naesayers downticking above

tom hunter

“We’ll see if the long-awaited negative onslaught from Cruz has an effect, especially if it goes after Trump’s notorious thin skin.”

You mean the Cruz blatant lies he told in Iowa and now doing in SC. From what I read the voters are being awakened to Cruz after Iowa. Trumps notorious thin skin? He is passionate when he needs to be to score.

So far his strategy has paid off. I expect him to tone down a tad soon and get even more detailed on policy to pick up the swinging voters on the fringes.